Getting The Public To Listen To Good Science 419
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "We all know that false or misleading science headlines are all too common these days and that misleading media combined with an apathetic and undereducated public lead to widespread ignorance. But the real question is, how can this trend be reversed? At a session at the recent AAAS meeting, a study was discussed indicating that what matters most is how the information is portrayed. While people are willing to defer to experts on matters of low concern, for things that affect them directly, such as breast cancer or childhood diseases, expertise only counts for as much as giving off a 'sense of honesty and openness,' and that it matters far less than creating a sense of empathy in deciding who people will listen to. In other words, it's not enough to merely report on it as an expert. You need to make sure your report exudes a sense of honesty, openness, empathy, and maybe even a hint of humor."
People don't believe in it anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Man In The Sky (Score:5, Insightful)
Just do what Global Warming Advocates Do (Score:1, Insightful)
Follow these steps and you're sure to have people believe your "correct" science.
Entertainment value (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, what is Good Science? A lot of the more entertaining science is Bad Science. For example, Discovery Channel segments on dinosaurs often feature people making roaring extrapolations: find a tooth fragment and say that they have found something from a dinosaur that would have been 25 ft long and run at 40 mph. What bullshit.
What we have here (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this is a war that we are unlikely to win. The hearts and minds of the populace are mostly centered between the stomach and groin. What the AAS report is basically saying is that science has to "advertise" - just like everything else.
Then it's not "science". It's just one more religion / belief system in a pile of others out to get converts.
The only thing we can do is teach the scientific method - in schools, at home, in conversations. It's the only weapon we've got, however small.
schools (Score:4, Insightful)
Root of the Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, the majority of the "ruling class" in management, government and all other areas are generally not scientifically inclined nor are they actively promoting science. They influence education policy and funding for research, which trickles down to the education system and the public's view of science.
I personally found algebra and calculus to be interesting and challenging, the latter is what drove a lot of my friends away, when I first learned it ages ago. I know that if I had worst teachers or if my father weren't an engineer, my feelings towards would have been quite different. Until scientists are more popular than movie stars and mathematicians are more well known than recording artists, the root of the problem will still be that science is just not popular enough to be seen as interesting or useful.
The fact that people actually care about Paris Hilton is also a nice solid data point in my suggestion that people's perspective on what's interesting and important is just waaaay off the mark from reality.
Re:Entertainment value (Score:0, Insightful)
And that's what scares me.
Re:Just do what Global Warming Advocates Do (Score:2, Insightful)
The current problem is that we have too many people who are willing to tell lies to support their political views. They have found that the lies are much more acceptable when you have an authority figure telling them to the populace. Thus, you get Creationists pretending to be scientists when speaking to the public. The same goes with Global Warming deniers and other followers of Pseudoscience.
People don't trust science anymore because they have been lied to by people like you for so long they don't know what to trust or who to believe. One group of "scientists" tell them one thing and the next day another tells them something else.
We have gotten into this mess because people like you started to believe that Science somehow had to reflect their own political opinions, no matter what the evidence. (Like the melting polar icecaps.)
Widespread ignorance of science hurts everyone! (Score:1, Insightful)
It's good to see the AAAS address this under-rated issue, that of public understanding of science. This has been a worsening problem for decades. I hope they follow up and make this a priority, even if they ave to go some "touchy-feely" way (empathy) to reach people.
Re:Just do what Global Warming Advocates Do (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just do what Global Warming Advocates Do (Score:5, Insightful)
All science is tentative, but thus far the denier community has tried to push that to an extreme, and are even invoking similar kinds of arguments (invoking conspiracies, questioning the peer-review process, getting lists of "scientists" who disagree with global warming that often include non-climatologists and even non-scientists) that evolution-deniers use.
That's part of the problem... (Score:1, Insightful)
People talking to them that way is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Try an experiment sometime: see how people respond when they're NOT being talked down to. Those perceptions didn't come about by chance. They can be changed and there are methods for dealing with them. But it's easier just to mock the stupid people.
Speaking of which, would an editor mind fixing the 'a studies was discussed' edit in my story?
Re:What we have here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What we have here (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, one big problem is that the scientific method is usually taught incorrectly. People frame it as if the scientific method explained everything about how actual scientists do actual science; there's this weird image that scientists just mechanically follow a set of steps, and science results.
In fact, of course, the scientific method is merely (though crucially) a way to apply rigorous tests to the results of intuition and imagination. Kekule dreamed that benzene was a ring; no amount of mechanical scientific-method application would have ever resulted in that golden idea. But, having had that idea, he then went into the lab and applied the scientific method to test it, to measure his confidence in the results of those tests. He published his results in a form which allowed others to reproduce his experiments, and to analyze his proposed explanation for the results of those experiments. All that is how science manages to be more than opinion.
But the interesting part, the human part, the part that gets people interested in science, is the very part that isn't subject to the scientif method. I believe it was Brecht who remarked (paraphrased from memory) that science is not a gateway to infinite wisdom, but rather a guard against infinite folly. That's the best summary of the scientific method I've ever run across.
Re:immunization (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm irritated that my health plan doesn't properly cover real medical expenses like wisdom tooth extraction or eye exams, but it does cover naturopathy. Why do I have to pay for someone's placebo habit?
You're joking, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ignorance has consequences. Teach people to be responsible for their own learning, and you don't need to "dumb it down" for them. Pander to them and you're stuck as their babysitter for the rest of their lives.
A Sisyphean Task (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the problem, at least here in the U.S. (land of self-centeredness and instant gratification) is that science often fails to give people the answers they want to hear, or the results they want to have.
This is especially true when it comes to medical science. As far as medicine has advanced, there are still diseases and maladies that cannot be cured or even mitigated by current knowledge and practices. It can be very hard, if you are someone suffering from something of that sort, to accept that there may be little, or even nothing, that can be done. Desperation can cause even basically level-headed people to seek out untested or even already debunked alternative treatments that may at best have a mild placebo effect, more likely will do nothing to alleviate their suffering, and at worst can worsen the condition or hasten the person's ultimate demise.
Religion, obviously, can be a powerful impediment to acceptance of science as well. If your faith stands or falls with a literal reading of Genesis, then you will not, indeed CANnot accept scientific evidence to the contrary.
Finally, one thing I've always noted about humans is that we don't like "grey areas." We want answers that are complete, definitive, and satisfying. The fact that science can sometimes be wrong, and theories changed as more evidence is gathered, is unsettling to those who don't understand the scientific method, and leads them to have little faith in its conclusions.
This can only be remedied by not only pushing basic science courses hard and early in school (something way more comprehensive than that which produces the mere ability to answer a few multiple-choice questions on some standardized test), but instruction in reasoning and critical thinking as well. And I don't see that happening, not by a long shot. If you have a child, and want him or her to be scientifically literate, you pretty much have to teach them yourself. Schools today are about establishing minimal (very minimal) levels of ability, and high (very high) levels of conformity. Teaching too much science threatens the former goal, while instruction in critical thinking thwarts the latter.
Re:Article: Most scientific papers probably wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
"When I read the literature, I'm not reading it to find proof like a textbook. I'm reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that's something to think about," he says."
Also, the author of the paper points out that replication is more important than the original finding. Generally things aren't elevated to the level of scientific "truth" on the basis of one study. If the public wants to peruse scientific journals or if publish by press conference is going to become an accepted standard, then the public should understand this.
But when your oncologist recommends chemotherapy he is not speaking from the results of one small, unregulated study.
Note also that even if "most published scientific results are wrong," those results are still more likely to be correct than any other result.
True But... (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, it's highly unlikely that the inventor of the "free energy" stuff is actually on to anything. I take his claims with a truckload of salt, but am willing to see what is really going on there.
It is possible that he hit on something, but pretty highly unlikely.
"YOU CAN'T GET ENERGY OUT OF NOTHING"
Very true. But if someone DOES hit on a way to tap into something we've been heretofore unaware of, that doesn't make it energy from nothing, just energy from something we didn't know about before -- the same as fusion, fission, and antimatter anniahlation would have been unthinkable in 1670.
SJ Gould was talking about this in the 90's (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:immunization (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably because they're cheaper than real medicine.
Jocks rule, geeks lose (Score:2, Insightful)
How many had articles about students being accepted to academically prestigious schools (e.g. MIT, CalTech, etc.)?
How much funding is there for new locker room equipment? How much for science labs? (my daughter's high school still has the lab benches installed when the school was built 30 years ago.. they also have artificial turf in the football stadium.)
Re:What we have here (Score:5, Insightful)
...which causes people to make unsupported assertions, and then speak in anecdotes and generalities...
:>)
Re:Just do what Global Warming Advocates Do (Score:2, Insightful)
It sounds more like you don't like the side that's cheering that agenda, so this ends up a case of guilty by association.
Re:That's part of the problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't talk down to people I show my research, but the very act of presenting the research to them in its unadulterated form is tantamount to talking down without saying anything. For that matter, a lot of scientists won't get much of it either, but there's some sort of unwritten rule that says you're supposed to act as if you understand everything written in any paper you ever read on the first run-through - I guess it's there to preserve scientists' egos or something
Obscurantism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't let facts get in the way of good fun (Score:5, Insightful)
The first step towards solving the problem, in my opinion, is stop making college degrees the minimum requirement for employment, regardless of major. There are too many people attending college today simply looking for any degree. This results in over-enrollment in so called easy majors, and less funding for science and engineering. You don't see nearly as many foreign students in those programs because, for them, the job market back home requires real knowledge, not just a piece of paper.
Good Science (Score:1, Insightful)
Come to think of it, this sounds a lot like al gore when he presented his global warming video. exuding honesty, openness, empathy and humor are great for getting out the message. of course the message itself needs to be good science. in the case of gore's video, he shows a graph of global warming and c02 levels. the undeniable truth in the graph is that measurements have shown that c02 levels and global temperatures seem to be completely connected. yes they are, but now the way gore explains it. if we could zoom in on any part of the graph, we would see that c02 level changes come *after* changes in global temperature, not before. c02 levels respond to changes in global temperature, not the other way around. and to be honest, true science only concerns itself with measurements. it can only infer causes, but it can never prove causal relationship completely. there will always be some element of doubt.
(putting on my fireproof underwear now ha ha!)
the fact that gore (a politician, not a scientist) got a nobel prize for sharing "good" scientific work that contains clear errors like the one i just shared is just further evidence that the only scientific views that are allowed to be shared are the ones that are politically beneficial to those in power. and so good science will always take a back seat to politically beneficial "science". just consider the work of dr. michael behe concerning irreducible complexity in molecular biology. *he* should have got a nobel prize! he made one of the greatest discoveries ever, and yet because his findings are an "inconvenient truth" for the people in power calling the shots, his findings have been quietly and powerfully buried. (nevermind that none of his peers have ever refuted his work.)
for those of you who are into conspiracy theories, check this out. it may be just another whacko idea with no truth to it at all, or it may be a very good explanation for what is happening in our scientific communities today.
whacko conspiracy link [conspiracyarchive.com]
Re:Yeah, but can you 'prove' it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just do what Global Warming Advocates Do (Score:1, Insightful)
I am no climatologist, but I have 20 years of post graduate scientific experience. I spent 10 years in academic biochemistry research and 10 in commercial bioinformatics. I can analyze data. I do it for a living. I have probably been doing it longer than you have been alive. Again I will reiterate, to state that the "debate is over" is arrogant and self-serving. The debate is rarely, if ever, over.
Socrates was right (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: Sophistry trumps logic in public debate.
Exudes a sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Still is pending how you distinguish good from bad science, of both can be presented in similar ways. Maybe some trusted authority/organization/etc can say that it is good, or at least, that the followed methodology is right.
Re:What we have here (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. Having a basic rational understanding of the world is absolutely "for everyone". If someone can't and won't understand the basics of the scientific knowledge that we as a species have struggled for all of history to figure out then they *should* be made to feel stupid - ignorance certainly isn't a virtue to be respected.
Re:Bull. People want "Truth". (Score:5, Insightful)
I've watched friends become church-goers; kneel before a priest and promise to believe in biblical claims. How can anybody "promise" to believe anything? Isn't belief the final product after a process observational and logical cross analysis has taken place? All you can realistically promise to believe is what your mind tells you is true. And since we are constantly learning, then we cannot promise, ever, that our belief system will not change when new information enters our awareness. Such promises can only be kept if we effectively stop learning and stop cross analyzing. --So either my friend was just nodding and repeating what he was told to say at his religious confirmation ceremony without thinking about it, or he was actually really promising to limit his rational thought processes to only those which would allow continued "belief" in biblical doctrine; a virtual lobotomy. Either way, it was a very disheartening event to witness; this is a guy who is otherwise smart and aware and caring. Luckily, it's possible to change your mind, and so all I can do is continue being myself and allow him to grow as he best sees fit. But it has been a challenge to remain respectful.
I'd been invited to his confirmation and he really wanted me to be there, so I went. It was my first time inside a church in many years, and I was reminded again why I cannot stand religion. --I was the only person, I think, in a church filled with almost my entire community, sitting there thinking, "This is all absolutely fucking insane. All these people are crazy! Aren't they hearing this stuff? Don't they SEE what is going on here?" --I've read the bible, and I've studied the other various religions, I know how cults work, I know how social control works, I know how mind-programming works, and I know enough psychology to know how and why people can be seduced, or worse, how (as you point out), they WANT to be seduced. I can tear the whole thing apart like the sand castle that it is, and I've done this over and over. Anybody with a brain can do it; it's fish in a barrel stuff.
But I held back on that day. I'd been invited by my friend, who knows full well my views on this, so all I could do was agree to watch him do this thing.
Brrr. I'm sorry. I'm venting.
Or perhaps I should say. . .
Fucking 'A'.
-FL
Re:immunization (Score:4, Insightful)
Thimerosal preservatives haven't been used in vaccines for children in years. Long enough, in fact, that the much ballyhooed (but never demonstrated) link between that and autism has been disproven because autism rates haven't decreased since the discontinuance of thimerosal.
Re:immunization (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Entertainment value (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to amend that to remove TLC. Sadly, we're well beyond the days of James Burke's Connections and the like. There's not much science involved in 2-day home renovation shows, fashion makeover shows, or pimp-my-vehicle.
The closest they get is the occasional ghost investigation, which can hardly be called science.
Re:Don't let facts get in the way of good fun (Score:5, Insightful)
I've toyed with ideas about programs that would be more corporately focused. For example, what if student loan recipients were chosen by companies? The company would be on the hook for hiring the student after graduation. The student would be responsible for maintaining good grades in a major approved by the company (note: students would be able to pick the company that offered a major that they wanted). Students who flunk out, change majors (without a new sponsor), or who decide not to work for their sponsor have to pay the loan back. If the company cuts back staff and does not hire the student, then the company eats the loan. If the company hires the student, the company is assumed to have adjusted the student's pay appropriately. After some number of years, the student will finish the loan period and can switch companies without paying back the loan.
Another possibility would be to replace federal grants with corporate tax credits. Companies could pay for a student's tuition and mark it down as taxes paid. Obviously it would be more efficient for a company to pay tuition for a student it would like to hire than someone who is interested in an entirely different field.
A big problem with US education before college is the shortness of the school year. Why not take a page from Germany's book and switch to ten 216 day years in elementary and secondary school (the same 2160 days that come from twelve 180 day years)? Then go to a two year program that could be more general than a university degree (i.e. something like Engineering, Science, or Liberal Arts rather than Electrical Engineering, Physics, or Philosophy) and more specific than the final two years of secondary school currently are. Afterwards, students could go to the regular university with a more consistent and focused presentation. For people who aren't college inclined, they could use those two years in a trade school.
Re:Just do what Global Warming Advocates Do (Score:1, Insightful)
And that is my skepticism. Is it the main cause? 90% 40%? 5%? And that little tidbit of information matters very much.
Look, I've been recycling since the 70s (since I can remember), I ride my bike to work almost every day, year around. I am an environmentalist. But as a scientist, I simply will not swallow politicized agendas regarding science. I will not take a party line, ever.
Re:immunization (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Entertainment value (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Don't let facts get in the way of good fun (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many problems with this approach. First, fields seen as "not profitable" by corporate leaders would suffer greatly. Fields such as paleontology, philosophy, history and even pure mathematics would go the way of the dodo bird. Next, those who wanted one of those unpopular majors would be forced into a government student loan that has dwindling users meaning the cost would go through the roof (as if it isn't already there) simply because nobody except those unpopular majors are getting them. Lastly, the whole concept of "general education" would die because companies wouldn't pay for classes that don't directly relate to whatever job they have lined up for the student. That is just a small sample of the problems. I''m sure others can think of more.
Re:What we have here (Score:4, Insightful)
I want to scream at some points when the students are doing labs/I'm grading their labs.
"Data is king! It determines truth. If it doesn't match with what you expected, one of two things is going on. Either your expectations were wrong or you didn't do a good enough experiment."
You'd be surprised (or maybe not, this is Slashdot...) how many students think "I did the experiment once, my data is perfect, nothing could have possibly gone wrong." If they would shut up from talking about how their weekend went and actually think about what they're doing it would all be so much easier.
Ok, I've gone off topic. My apologies. But seriously, stop, examine data and where it came from. Don't go by who told it to you, go by what was told.
Geek to geek (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you listen to someone who views you in that way?
People don't listen to geeky experts because
Re:Yeah, but can you 'prove' it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple, as atheist's selfish agenda is to hate God and deny his revealed truth, no atheist can be moral. Nobody "doesn't belive in god" they know he is real, they just deny him, which is evil and therefore immoral.
You cannot be moral without God, therefore you cannot be a moral atheist nor a moral atheist agenda
I think I'll be just fine with my atheistic moral system. It forces me to think why an action is moral instead of searching for some verse in a holy book that I can interpret to my whims.
Re:easy mode (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What we have here (Score:3, Insightful)
However it's quite unreasonable to expect most normal people to understand all/any aspects of modern science. The only way you could get them to pay attention is by rubbing their noses in their intellectual inferority. I'll do this to you now to illustrate:
Sketch an IR spectrum of HCl.
Draw a circuit diagram for a current-to-voltage converter using a stock OpAmp.
Write down a Euler-Lagrange equation for the shortest path between two points on an n-dimentional surface of your choice (you pick n).
Describe an active site of acetylcholine esterase and how it interacts with a nerve agent of your choice.
What is a holomorphic manifold?
How do you cite a sound recording in MLA format?
Name four European heads of state contemporary to Bismark.
Why is mercury liquid at room temp while thallium isn't?
What is Kalidasa famous for?
How is ICP-AE different from a normal AA?
See, you probably are quite a smart person able to make a living and take care of yourself. Most probably you succeeded in life without knowing a single answer to these freshman-level scince intro questions. Should we fault you for not being interested in any of this?
Conversely, there is no reason to expect that most people will care or understand these basics either, much less "real" modern science.
Re:immunization (Score:3, Insightful)
So, given your post, you are clearly a victim of bad science.
Re:What we have here (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think so; I believe what we have here is - if anything, a failure in education. People are taught what to think, not how to think. The moment you know how to think and see an affirmation that has no support (in infotainment - for example) you can realize that. When you don't know how to think, you'll probably say "I'ts true - I saw that on discovery ( I do that more often than I'd like to :-( ).
Sadly I've learned more about what science is from Hawking's Brief History of Time and an interview series with Feynman on youtube than I learned in 16 years of formal education :(.
Re:Don't let facts get in the way of good fun (Score:4, Insightful)
Here, here!
My majors (well, if I were studying in the USA, they would be called majors) are English, Linguistics and Information Science, all with a reputation of being "easy".
Information Science, the way it is taught here, really is an easy major, no question there.
Linguistics is a field that is relatively obscure and, in a small country such as Croatia, not very profitable.
As for English — well, everyone speaks English, so everyone can teach English and everybody can be a translator or even an interpreter. Yet for some reason most of them would still make a mistake such as "here, here!" instead of "hear, hear!" (yeah, that was on purpose), or even "shoe, shoe!" instead of "shoo! shoo!" (I kid you not).
I dropped out from Electrical Engineering and Computer Science once upon a time and switched to these "easy" majors, and let me tell you: the only subject that really is easy is the one you enjoy doing. I flunked certain courses in EE and CS even though some of my colleagues, who subsequently graduated, would come to me for explanations — I was simply no longer interested in doing the hard work necessary to pass the exams. And even now, studying the "easy stuff", I see very few people really good at it.
It's all easy if you don't look harder into it.
Creationism is an insult to reason and rationality (Score:3, Insightful)
Agenda driven 'Science' (Score:2, Insightful)
The Metric System (Score:2, Insightful)
"Gram" and "millimeter" may as well be Martian.
There's an advantage to reporting your mass in kilograms - the numbers are smaller so you feel better about them!
Re:Entertainment value (Score:3, Insightful)
You've captured the reason why the pronouncements of science are so easily dismissed by the public: they've watched during their lifetime as most major scientific theories have been completely debunked and replaced with newer, ever more confusing theories. That may be the method of science, but to the average layman it looks a lot like deception.
Here's a clue: try using words like "maybe" and "possibly" to capture true nature of an untested (or untestable) theory. As it turns out, most folks are turned off by arrogance, particularly when flavored by a history of spectacular failure. Add that to the fact that scientists tend to harp on the layman's "ignorance", which is usually nothing of the sort. Here's a hint: that's verbally abusive behavior. As a result "scientist" is now easily conflated with "first-order jerk". A little bit of humility would go a long way.